I shot two rolls of Neopan today on my Fuji GW690 III and I must say I missed shooting it for some time now.
Only thing is its fixed lens feels a little limiting.
I am just contemplating any other options. I got GX680 Pro III but I was really busy until last month and never got around to test it properly.
It's a great camera, but its drawback is size and general amount of tools to lug around with it. I still need to get WA bellows and rail extensions as well as 120/220 cartridges.

Are there any interesting options? Speaking both practically and creatively. Lens price and availability weighted against performance and quality, operation and practicality.
Or perhaps easier
Mamiya RZ67 or RB67? Fuji M7? Pentax? Bronica? Rollei TLR? What are you guy's personal preferences?

Many Japanese shoot Pentax MF cameras. I am somewhat distrustful of their choices
I don't mind waist level finder personally, but GW690 does feel good to hold indeed.

I recall someone advising against Mamiya 645s and suggesting RZ, but I can't quite recall the thread...need to search.
One camera I was eyeing is Fuji panoramic Gx617, but it's rather expensive, awkward and still without interchangable lenses.

What did put most of you off TLRs? If you don't mind me asking..

GSW is tasty but fairly rare. Need to visit local shop - they had a rack full of GW last time but I didn't have much time..

I'm a big fan of the rz67, own the pro II varient my self. Once you get use to the size (smaller then the rb) it's a really fun streamlined system. Lenses are all very nice and are relatively cheap and readily available on sites like keh. The viewfinder is large and bright, so focus is a snap, and the built in bellows is incredibly useful.

Strange, i find hand holding the major advantage of my Rolleicord. Waist level viewing held against my chest feels very natural to me, and the lack of a mirror or focal plane shutter means i can shoot at way lower shutter speeds.

I own a D700, X100, Mamiya 7, and F100. The Mamiya 7 is my favorite camera of the four. I held a Pentax 67 recently, and while it was lighter than I expected, I was thankful in a new way for my 7. I own both the 80 and 65, and the 80 is perfectly balanced with the camera. It's also spectacularly sharp. The 65 is sharp as well, but the 80 is in a class of its own.

The only legitimate issue I can see someone having is the relatively small minimum aperture-- f/4. It's not an issue for depth of field in my view, but I don't share the obsession many people have with matters related to such things (the 150/4.5 is available if necessary, and it happens to be the least expensive lens on the used market). It is, however, an issue for light gathering, which is part of why I've begun using a flash with my 7. It's possible to make up some ground by shooting at a lower shutter speed, since it's a rangefinder and one with a leaf shutter.

I like rangefinders and find focusing with them easier than a manual focus SLR. Your mileage will vary.

Hasselblads are anachronistic. They have absolutely no features beyond film loading, shutter speed, aperture and focusing via the viewfinder (okay, and mirror lockup). You need to bring your own meter (unless you want to buy a 203FE/205TCC/205FCC). On the other hand, they are wonderful to operate, have some great Zeiss lenses, and have a satisfying clunk when you shoot.

carstenw wrote:
Hasselblads are anachronistic. They have absolutely no features beyond film loading, shutter speed, aperture and focusing via the viewfinder (okay, and mirror lockup). You need to bring your own meter (unless you want to buy a 203FE/205TCC/205FCC). On the other hand, they are wonderful to operate, have some great Zeiss lenses, and have a satisfying clunk when you shoot.